Jeffrey Tucker’s Case Against Libertarianism

Jeffrey Tucker Reduces Core Libertarian Ideals To “Brutalism”

In the ongoing conflict between leftist infiltrators who want to redefine libertarianism, and purists who wish to stay on message, yet another high profile libertarian has ditched principle for popularity, and condemned principled action as racist, and misogynist. Jeffrey Tucker, publisher at Laissez Faire Books, and fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education, wrote an article today titled “Against Libertarian Brutalism”. Mr. Tucker, to his credit, had the decency to acknowledge that we “brutalists” as he calls us, are correct in our assertion that libertarianism itself cares not for aesthetics, or race/gender baiting, before calling us racists, misogynists, anti-Semites, boors, and a list of ad-hominems too long for me to list.

According to Jeffrey Tucker, the people Tom Woods referred to as “thick libertarians” are the “humanitarians” who love all that is beautiful about liberty.

The humanitarians are drawn to reasons such as the following. Liberty allows peaceful human cooperation. It inspires the creative service of others. It keeps violence at bay. It allows for capital formation and prosperity. It protects human rights of all against invasion. It allows human associations of all sorts to flourish on their own terms. It socializes people with rewards toward getting along rather than tearing each other apart, and leads to a world in which people are valued as ends in themselves rather than fodder in the central plan.
We know all of this from history and experience. These are all great reasons to love liberty.

Buy VPN

But, Jeffrey Tucker explains, there is also a dark side to libertarianism,

But they are not the only reasons that people support liberty. There is a segment of the population of self-described libertarians—described here as brutalists—who find all the above rather boring, broad, and excessively humanitarian. To them, what’s impressive about liberty is that it allows people to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontented with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms.

Jeffrey Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker

What a dramatic contrast! Humanitarians vs. Brutalists, people who love prosperity vs. people who hate everything, people who value diversity vs. racists. Well, when you put it that way, these “humanitarians” certainly sound like wonderful people, and those brutalists sound like terrible evil villains. Good thing we have Jeffrey Tucker to explain to us the difference between good and evil, with this absurd false dichotomy.

Buy VPN
Increase your sexual stamina with Fleshlight

Then again, this all sounds rather familiar. Those kindhearted Democrats who want to help the poor vs. those evil Republicans who care about nothing but corporate greed. Ron Paul’s “racist” newsletters vs. that moderate with the nice hair. The perpetual compromises of the Libertarian Party vs. hard line non-aggresionists.

It’s really sad to see a guy like Jeffrey Tucker descend into the tactics of politicians, to false dichotomy, strawman, and ad hominem, all in one article. All while failing to make any substantial point whatsoever, but this is what happens when one allies with leftists. Since words have no meaning, there is no need to actually say anything, just appeal to the emotions of your target audience. You don’t have to make your case, just call your opponent a racist. No need for a consistent stance on anything, just call for compromise and be inclusive of all but those “extremists” unwilling to abandon their principles.

This isn’t Jeffrey Tucker’s first flirtation with leftists, he co-authored an article with Cathy Reisenwitz making Ludwig von Mises out to be a feminist. He wrote of a “new libertarianism” which “should embrace the ideals of feminism in the same way we embrace the anti-slavery cause“. He has praised Cathy Reisenwitz’s “proto-socialism”.

I’d really like Jeffrey Tucker, or Cathy Reisenwitz, or any of these other race baiting feminist goons, to tell me exactly where are all these openly racist libertarians you speak of? Who exactly is it? Better yet, what is racism, besides that which mentions race or has a disproportionate demographic?

Am I sexist for having sex exclusively with women (and inanimate objects)? Does this make me homophobic? If I had a policy of only having sex with black women, would this make me a racist? If I sing along to a black rapper, and I say “nigga” does this make me racist?

The problem you have with we “brutalists” is not that we are racist, homophobic, anti-Semetic, etc… Because clearly that’s not the case. Even Cathy notes “it’s difficult to survey for racism, as most racists don’t self-identify as such“. What people like Cathy, and now by extension, people like Jeffrey Tucker do, is find any mention, implication, or demographic disparity pertaining to race or gender, and then label it racist or misogynist. They find any disparity of wealth, and call it privilege. All of these disparities need to be abolished in the eyes of the egalitarian, and libertarianism simply has no opinion on the matter. Rather than point out that they are creating hysteria over something that is not bigoted at all, sometimes we’ll address the fact that bigotry and privilege are not things which our core philosophy is terribly concerned about. For pointing that out, we are called racists and misogynists and homophobes and anti-Semites, which is the last dying breath of an argument lost.

If Tucker wants to make the case that libertarianism helps women, fine. Nobody is saying not to. If he wants to make the case that black people would be better off without the State, fine. Nobody is saying not to. What we “brutalists” are saying is, egalitarianism is not the means or end of libertarianism, and saying otherwise in hopes of attracting Democrats into our ranks is illusory.

When you repeat statist race propaganda, do you grow our ranks? No. You simply distract from the point that race is irrelevant. You give credence to those who would use the State in their perpetually failing efforts to “correct” these disparities. You feed into the misperception that libertarianism is racist for not caring about race. You turn off the independent minded black, female, and homosexual people out there who would otherwise join us.

To act like you are somehow taking the moral high ground, or doing something courageous in this is just plain ridiculous. What bravery does it take to make a stand against racism in 2014? How much intelligence is required to see a demographic disparity and shout “racist, misogynist, bigot”?

None.

How much courage does it take to stand up for a comedian’s right to tell a joke, while the full forces of the State are trying to censor anything disagreeable? How much principle does it take for an atheist to stand up for a religious man’s right to believe in an ancient cryptic fiction novel? How much intelligence does it take to see past a pie chart of skin color, and try to address something more meaningful than race?

More than any leftist is ever going to muster…

Shame on Jeffrey Tucker for taking the wrong side in this conflict, and for using every underhanded, principle defying logical fallacy in the book to do so.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • John Galt

    I was hoping you would be addressing this article, which is the worst one I have ever read by Tucker. I knew we would lose him when he started rubbing elbows with Reisenwitz and speaking highly of her ideas, and today’s article was the culmination.

    “libertarianism is racist for not caring about race.” I think this sums up their position well.

    • Guest

      Is Tucker gay? I mean I would assume so – not that I’m against it – but it would feed into the reason for him attaching to her ideas. The foundation of these ideas are rooted in insecurity.

    • Ap

      Is Tucker gay? I mean I would assume so – not that I’m against it – but it would feed into the reason for him attaching to her ideas. The foundation of these ideas are rooted in insecurity; insecurity that is usually galvanized because there is an emotional reaction to someone who represents a “majority” to them. It is the definition of bigotry.

      • Armozel

        Um no, he’s married and has a daughter, yo.

        • Ap

          Interesting, thanks for the clarification – I was wrong then.

        • zaqan

          That means absolutely nothing regarding his sexuality.

        • Harold Rehling

          In queer circles, back when being queer meant you had to be in the seedy underground, back when being “outed” meant you were largely unemployable, that was called “a beard”.

          I’m not saying Tucker IS gay, there are hyper-effeminate gay men, I’m just saying that being married with children means nothing.

  • Ap

    I literally read this paragraph as being aimed at people like Cathy:
    “But they are not the only reasons that people support liberty. There is a segment of the population of self-described libertarians—described here as brutalists—who find all the above rather boring, broad, and excessively humanitarian. To them, what’s impressive about liberty is that it allows people to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontented with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms.”

    Until you put it in context that Tucker was talking about actual libertarians, I thought that was talking about the sexists and racists like Cathy.

    That really does describe the liberals such as herself perfectly. PERFECTLY.

    • illuminarch

      Exactly.

  • Richard Onley

    Racists don’t self-identify for the same reason 16th and 17th Century witches didn’t.

    • http://grero.com/ Grero.com

      They’re too busy plotting the destruction of all society? ;-)

    • Davy Goossens

      libertarian moron ot day goes to…

    • TonyWestover

      That’s not even kinda the same thing.

      Most racists are just so warped that they don’t think they’re racists. Look at Al Sharpton for instance, he’s a rampant racist yet he’d never identify himself as one because he’s so mentally deranged.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Tucker is useful in that he openly identifies Reisenshitz as a socialist. How is this woman even tolerated among Libertarians?

    • John Galt

      You gotta give her one thing, she sure has been influential. I first came across her on Thought Catalog and thought she was just some misguided liberal, but she has been embraced and has helped show everyone’s true colors and divide (and conquer) the anarchists like a good liberal in libertarian clothing. Mission accomplished.

      • SalarymaninSeoul

        Check HER privilege: it never hurts to be a pretty (relatively speaking) blonde with just enough touch of ditz to make her seem nonthreatening.

        But, as you say, she is a very big threat and I am sure she is a plant in the movement designed to divide and conquer.

    • TonyWestover

      Cathy’s a cultural Marxists no doubt, and an obnoxious btich… but I can’t think of an instance where she’s called for state inventions and initiations of aggressions.

      Being an obnoxious btich doesn’t banned your from the libertarian ideology, and technically cultural Marxism and libertarianism aren’t mutually exclusive… but I doubt any cultural Marxists could stay libertarian for long.

  • illuminarch

    This is Jeffrey Tucker, the traditionalist Catholic who runs the New Liturgical Movement? Has he become a Unitarian?

    Tucker is a smart guy. You’d think he’d realize what these “tolerant” leftist pseudo-libertarians think about guys like him, his religion, his system of morality, his support for traditional institutions and values.

    • Davy Goossens

      it started with his text arguing mises was a feminist. the same tucker however denied mises being a feminist when he wrote a few years earlier trying to prove mises was a conservative. both relied heavily on selective reading of course.

      also he converted in a large part because of the music.
      the music!
      it’s like people who convert to islam because they love the sound of the azan.

  • White Anglo-Saxon Pagan

    What does Tucker think he is going to gain by sucking up to Leftists? Sure, feminists had some good points but they also have some pretty bad ones. Nowadays, feminists overwhelmingly support humanistic totalitarianism. People like Tucker who want to cut minorities off welfare and legalize private racial discrimination are going to be targeted as enemies. It doesn’t matter what you say about the drug war or how bad you think private discrimination is, if you are going outside of the establishment then you are going to be targeted. Leftists can never be allies against the state because leftism is an inherently totalitarian ideology. Any time spend trying to build bridges with these people is wasted (and most of them are intelligent enough to see through stuff like this anyway.)

    • fearsometycoon

      Tucker is hoping to gain access to Rentseekerwitz’s vagina.

  • Michael Jon Barker

    “In the ongoing conflict between leftist infiltrators who want to redefine libertarianism, and purists who wish to stay on message,”

    “Libertarianism (Latin: liber, “free”)[1] is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end.[2][3] This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty,[4][5] political freedom, and voluntary association. ” Wikipedia

    Libertarianism is a “set of related political philosophies”. You view your “set” as “purist” and see Mr. Tuckers as “leftist” yet his article stresses the Humanism within libertarianism in regards to how people should act within that philosophy. Libertarianism is humanistic because it stresses the primacy of man as being the benefactor of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. The stress of libertarianism is not on hierarchy’s like the State or religion but on the natural rights of man. It doesn’t call for the State to intervene in an attempt at egalitarian outcomes only in rights being equally shared. This doesn’t mean that social equality is guaranteed but rather that access to opportunity is free from third party coercion.

    “Humanism is an ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).” Wikipedia

    I would presume that you as an Atheist would have a set of ethics that you adhere too. What are they? If your views are solely those of a “purist” how is that any different from religious dogma?

    I think it would be more accurate to describe Mr.Tucker as a Catholic whose religion reflects the humanitarianism found within Christianity. It is through this lens that his anarchism is interpreted and why his theism is not in conflict with his philosophy. This obviously doesn’t make him a “leftist” nor others who wish to move humanity forward and who view every human being for plainly just being another human being.

    “It’s really sad to see a guy like Jeffrey Tucker descend into the tactics of politicians, to false dichotomy, strawman, and ad hominem, all in one article.”

    Is it really a false dichotomy? Some libertarians have humanistic values, some are indifferent and some don’t have any perceivable ethics. It is the ethics behind libertarianism that Mr. Tucker brings into focus.

    Where’s the straw man here ?

    “Brutalism can appear in many ideological guises. Bolshevism and Nazism are both obvious examples: Class and race become the only metric driving politics to the exclusion of every other consideration. In modern democracy, partisan politics tends toward brutalism insofar as it asserts party control as the only relevant concern. Religious fundamentalism is yet another obvious form.”

    Brutalism becomes the ends to the means and is the characteristic of “Purists” like yourself in the above mentioned examples.

    Ad hominem ? Your the one describing Libertarians as Democrats and Leftists.

    “I’d really like Jeffrey Tucker, or Cathy Reisenwitz, or any of these other race baiting feminist goons, to tell me exactly where are all these openly racist Libertarians you speak of? Who exactly is it?

    ( http://libertarianrealist.blogspot.com/) and his YouTube videos. (http://www.amren.com/features/2013/10/libertarians-and-race-realism/)

    When it comes to reading libertarian thinkers it does require critical thinking and the parsing of texts. Both Rothbard and Rand said things that were both racist and anti racist. Hoppe’s view of immigration should make every libertarian cringe. Hoppe by his own admission is a race realist. That said Hoppe has contributed greatly to libertarian theory in some of his works.

    “Better yet, what is racism, besides that which mentions race or has a disproportionate demographic?”

    I suppose you could go through life denying that racism exists. Millions of people do.

    “They find any disparity of wealth, and call it privilege. All of these disparities need to be abolished in the eyes of the egalitarian, and libertarianism simply has no opinion on the matter. Rather than point out that they are creating hysteria over something that is not bigoted at all, sometimes we’ll address the fact that bigotry and privilege are not things which our core philosophy is terribly concerned about.”

    Your confusing egalitarianism with libertarianism or rather implying that libertarians are Statist if they point out the obvious. No one is talking about equal outcomes through State force.

    Self ownership means doing away with the institutionalized privileges of the State and consciously recognizing Hierarchy’s within society that are oppressive. Otherwise everything breaks down into antagonistic groups.

    A civil society is based on mutually shared ethics and respect for your neighbors rights, even if on religious or philosophical grounds you think your neighbor is immoral. If your neighbor isn’t interfering with your life, liberty or property then you have no reason to object to that persons peculiarities.

    I think some libertarians are so focused on the individual and that persons rights that they ignore what a community would look like.

    “A community is the mental and spiritual condition of knowing that the place is shared, and that the people who share the place define and limit the possibilities of each other’s lives. It is the knowledge that people have of each other, their concern for each other, their trust in each other, the freedom with which they come and go among themselves.”
    ― Wendell Berry

    It sounds collectivist but it’s called Liberty.

  • Aaron Catlin Styles

    Tucker wrote the infamous “Ron Paul Newsletters” and now he is going to try and feed us this bullshit? I hope the next time he is sucking on a lolly pop and swinging on a swingset for a Liberty.me ad he falls off.

    • Jonathan Mailer

      ****Tucker wrote the infamous “Ron Paul Newsletters”****
      You have any proof of that? Or are you just another leftist pseudo-libertarian f*cktard spewing baseless allegations? The newsletter articles have no listed authors.

      • Aaron Catlin Styles

        Awwwww, did my joke make you sad?! I think you and Jeffy would get along wealy well. You can talk about how all the mean men say things you don’t agree with :*(

  • Michael Barker

    “In the ongoing conflict between leftist infiltrators who want to redefine libertarianism, and purists who wish to stay on message,”

    “Libertarianism (Latin: liber, “free”)[1] is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end.[2][3] This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty,[4][5] political freedom, and voluntary association. ” Wikipedia

    Libertarianism is a “set of related political philosophies”. You view your “set” as “purist” and see Mr. Tuckers as “leftist” yet his article stresses the Humanism within libertarianism in regards to how people should act within that philosophy. Libertarianism is humanistic because it stresses the primacy of man as being the benefactor of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. The stress of libertarianism is not on hierarchy’s like the State or religion but on the natural rights of man. It doesn’t call for the State to intervene in an attempt at egalitarian outcomes only in rights being equally shared. This doesn’t mean that social equality is guaranteed but rather that access to opportunity is free from third party coercion.

    “Humanism is an ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).” Wikipedia

    I would presume that you as an Atheist would have a set of ethics that you adhere too. What are they? If your views are solely those of a “purist” how is that any different from religious dogma?

    I think it would be more accurate to describe Mr.Tucker as a Catholic whose religion reflects the humanitarianism found within Christianity. It is through this lens that his anarchism is interpreted and why his theism is not in conflict with his philosophy. This obviously doesn’t make him a “leftist” nor others who wish to move humanity forward and who view every human being for plainly just being another human being.

    “It’s really sad to see a guy like Jeffrey Tucker descend into the tactics of politicians, to false dichotomy, strawman, and ad hominem, all in one article.”

    Is it really a false dichotomy? Some libertarians have humanistic values, some are indifferent and some don’t have any perceivable ethics. Mr. Tucker brought ethics into the discussion.

    Where’s the straw man here ?

    “Brutalism can appear in many ideological guises. Bolshevism and Nazism are both obvious examples: Class and race become the only metric driving politics to the exclusion of every other consideration. In modern democracy, partisan politics tends toward brutalism insofar as it asserts party control as the only relevant concern. Religious fundamentalism is yet another obvious form.”

    Brutalism becomes the ends to the means and is the characteristic of “Purists” like yourself in the above mentioned examples.

    Ad hominem ? Your the one describing Libertarians as Democrats and Leftists.

    “I’d really like Jeffrey Tucker, or Cathy Reisenwitz, or any of these other race baiting feminist goons, to tell me exactly where are all these openly racist Libertarians you speak of? Who exactly is it?

    Here’s two: Libertarian Realist blog and his YouTube channel and American Renaissance blog. Look at “Libertarians and race realism”

    When it comes to reading libertarian thinkers it does require critical thinking and the parsing of texts. Both Rothbard and Rand said things that were both racist and anti racist. Hoppe’s view of immigration should make every libertarian cringe. Hoppe’s by his own admission is a race realist. That said Hoppe has contributed greatly to libertarian theory in some of his works.

    “Better yet, what is racism, besides that which mentions race or has a disproportionate demographic?”

    I suppose you could go through life denying that racism exists. Millions of people do.

    “They find any disparity of wealth, and call it privilege. All of these disparities need to be abolished in the eyes of the egalitarian, and libertarianism simply has no opinion on the matter. Rather than point out that they are creating hysteria over something that is not bigoted at all, sometimes we’ll address the fact that bigotry and privilege are not things which our core philosophy is terribly concerned about.”

    Your confusing egalitarianism with libertarianism or rather implying that libertarians are statist if they point out the obvious. No one is talking about equal outcomes through State force.

    Self ownership means doing away with the institutionalized privileges of the State and consciously recognizing Hierarchy’s within society that are oppressive. Otherwise everything breaks down into antagonistic groups.

    A civil society is based on mutually shared ethics and respect for your neighbor rights even if on religious or philosophical grounds you think your neighbor is immoral. If your neighbor isn’t interfering with your life, liberty or property then you have no reason to object to that persons peculiarities.

    I think some libertarians are so focused on the individual and that persons rights that they ignore what a community would look like.

    “A community is the mental and spiritual condition of knowing that the place is shared, and that the people who share the place define and limit the possibilities of each other’s lives. It is the knowledge that people have of each other, their concern for each other, their trust in each other, the freedom with which they come and go among themselves.”
    ― Wendell Berry

    It sounds collectivist but it’s called Liberty.

  • Pingback: Libertarianism ill-defined | The Anarchist Notebook | Libertarian Anarchy()

  • John Galt

    There are two types of libertarians, those that point out that defensive violence against the state is inevitable and those that travel the country preaching to the converted at circle jerk liberty forums.

    • http://www.socionomics.net/press/book_reviews/Calderwood_TomorrowsHeadlines.html David C.

      Are Voluntaryists not libertarians?

  • Andrew Criscione

    I get why Tucker wrote this, I just think he could have worded it better. Tucker is trying to distance himself from the social-reactionary-ism of prominent Austrian economists. To illustrate one such example, here is a quote from Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “Democracy: The God that Failed”: “There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They–the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism–will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”

    Also, just read the Rockwell-Rothbard report from the early 90s, which Tucker is somewhat connected to (see Tucker’s Wikipedia entry for more on his connection). Here is a full copy of the report: http://www.unz.org/Pub/RothbardRockwellReport

    Tucker should have called these people and publications out by name, however, instead of making vague and somewhat un-libertarian-sounding statements.

    • Davy Goossens

      yet tucker knows hoppe for a long time, hoppe mentions him as a “friend” various times in recordings at the PFS.

      • jtkennedy

        During Hoppe’s legal flap Tucker banned me from mises.org for arguing against his position that Hoppe should be defended as a champion of liberty. He said I was the first person ever banned there.

    • jtkennedy

      “Tucker is trying to distance himself from the social-reactionary-ism of prominent Austrian economists. ” If Tucker is really addressing any part of Team Rockwell he needs to have the integrity to do it openly. I seriously doubt that is the case here.

  • Murray Roodbaard

    “If your views are solely those of a “purist” how is that any different from religious dogma?”

    Non sequitur. You assume being “pure” is being dogmatic when you haven’t done anything to prove that being “pure” in this regard isn’t the same as simply being RIGHT. You are making the assertion that in order not to be dogmatic one must not have a strict set of principles that one considers to be true.
    Your analogy to religious dogma is B.S. and a form of ad hominem. Religion is based on faith, not logic or fact. Have you, on the other hand, proven that libertarian “purity” is also faith, rather than logic or fact? No you haven’t. You simply dismiss the possibility.

    “This obviously doesn’t make him a “leftist” nor others who wish to move
    humanity forward and who view every human being for plainly just being
    another human being.”

    You obviously haven’t been paying attention. Jeffrey Tucker called Cathy Reisenwitz a “proto-socialist” in a complimentary way. Correct me if i’m wrong, but isn’t a socialist a leftist? Isn’t someone who praises “proto-socialism” also a leftist? When someone spouts horseshit about “privilege” in something like Bitcoin, considers insensitive speech to be a form of coercion, or talks about such P.C. nonsense things as misogyny or racism (when not OVERT) as not being an exception within libertarianism but more like a rule. then aren’t we talking about leftists?
    It’s your choice if you think not, but to a lot of us, it is typical leftist crap and we prefer it not poison libertarian philosophy.
    And if the likes of Tucker and Reisenwitz insist on bringing that kind of crap into a libertarian debate, you shouldn’t be surprised if they are dismissed as P.C. leftist cranks.

    “Both Rothbard and Rand said things that were both racist and anti racist.”

    Racist, or simply politically incorrect? To you there may not be a difference but to many of us there is. So first you’d have to deliver some sources.

    “I suppose you could go through life denying that racism exists. Millions of people do.”

    I don’t anyone here denies racism exists. I think some here, including me, are denying that it exists everywhere that you, Jeff Tucker and Cathy Reisenwitz think it does. Just as we are that there are “privilege” problems with Bitcoin.

    “Your confusing egalitarianism with libertarianism or rather implying that libertarians are Statist if they point out the obvious.”

    Except that they’re not pointing out the obvious, but are creating boogeymen to battle, where they don’t exist. The only thing they are actually doing, is to give fuel for statists to douse on libertarianism and set it ablaze.

    “Ad hominem ? Your the one describing Libertarians as Democrats and Leftists.”

    Because they are behaving that way. Rather than act as libertarians and battle the actual evil that is the state and its aggression, they focus on P.C. leftist bugaboos among libertarian ranks, as if society has THAT to worry about right now even if they did exist. I hate to beat a dead horse, but privilege with users in Bitcoin? THAT is the supposed “non-leftists” are worried about right now?

    “Self ownership means doing away with the institutionalized privileges of the State and consciously recognizing Hierarchy’s within society that are oppressive.”

    Without the employment of violence or threat of it, there is no such thing as hierarchies in society that are “oppressive”. If no force is threatened, then you are only “oppressed” if you choose to be.

    “If your neighbor isn’t interfering with your life, liberty or property
    then you have no reason to object to that persons peculiarities.”

    That’s funny, because this whole discussion is about people who see reason to object to people’s peculiarities, and making judgment calls by calling them “brutists” or “privileged” or “racist”. And you yourself are claiming that they are doing this without interfering with anyone’s life, liberty or property.

    So what reason do they have to do this? Good for the goose but not for the gander?

    And besides, never heard of freedom of expression?

    “It sounds collectivist but it’s called Liberty.”

    No it’s called a community. Just because you think your description of a community equals liberty does not make it so. One has nothing to do with the other. We have communities right now but no real liberty. Furthermore, in anarchist society it would be foolish to think people would choose to live in communities with people whose lifestyle they don’t like. Diversity is statist nonsense. There would be very little of it without a state to compel it.

    • Michael Jon Barker

      @ Murray Roodbaard
      “If your views are solely those of a “purist” how is that any different from religious dogma?”

      “Have you, on the other hand, proven that libertarian “purity” is also faith, rather than logic or fact? No you haven’t. You simply dismiss the possibility.”

      It’s Chris that calls himself a “purist”. (“and purists who wish to stay on message”) I’m asking for clarification. I’m presuming he means the literal definition of libertarianism and I’m going to presume that he layered NAP on top of it as a moral guide in regards to the relationship between force and property.

      Property in natural rights theory trace a line of equipoise balancing the individuals right to property against the duties individuals owe others out of respect for their Liberty which is like wise legitimately held in the sovereignty of the individual. It is this balance that NAP addresses.

      This is a moral argument based on humanism. The idea that the individual is responsible for the ethical consequences of their human decisions.

      My question to Chris is if this is solely what he builds his world view upon? I have already established that their is a moral basis in how we approach libertarianism through NAP. The question then becomes how far an individual chooses to expand his personal ethics beyond that scope.

      Their are Christian, Muslim and Humanist libertarians who build on top of that starting point.

      Mr.Tucker suggests that the “function” of libertarianism can take on various forms and that these forms, though varied are not mutually exclusive of each other.

      “Liberty is large and expansive and asserts no particular social end as the one and only way.”

      Tucker

      It is in the analogy of form and function within architecture and that relationship to ideology, religion ect that Mr.Tucker makes his argument. He is not saying that only libertarianism is affected by this approach.

      What I’m hearing from Chris is that the function and form of libertarianism are one in the same and it is this understanding that Tucker refers to as “brutalism”. Thus Chris’s point that “sometimes we’ll address the fact that bigotry and privilege are not things which our core philosophy is terribly concerned about.”

      “You obviously haven’t been paying attention. Jeffrey Tucker called Cathy Reisenwitz a “proto-socialist” in a complimentary way.”

      All I’m concerned with is the article Mr.Tucker wrote and what he means by it. Cathy wasn’t mentioned in the article and discussing her will just derail the conversation. I haven’t read that much of her but what I have seen she’s seems to believe in working within the political system. I’m an anarchist and don’t believe in working within the political system so I don’t pay to much attention to her. For someone who advocates Bitcoin and cyber currencies her statement made no sense.

      “Both Rothbard and Rand said things that were both racist and anti racist.”

      “So first you’d have to deliver some sources.”

      Rothbard wrote in support of reparations for slaves yet wrote a glowing review of the Bell Curve. Rand wrote against racism but was pro Zionist and thought Arabs were dirty people. As I said in my first piece one needs to parse the works of libertarian/ Anarchist writers.

      “I think some here, including me, are denying that it exists everywhere that you, Jeff Tucker and Cathy Reisenwitz think it does.”

      As an anarchist I recognize all hierarchy in society not just the ones I’m directly affected by. So race is a hierarchy that gets layered into empire and from that we can see the criminal justice system as interpreting law through the lens of race. Progressives call it white privilege. I call it an anthropocentric reflection of empire that historically it can be seen to have functioned in the Roman Empire as well. That’s why I’m anti statist. What I don’t agree with is how progressives wish to use “white privilege” as an argument to enact more statism to forward their political agenda often times negatively effecting the very groups that they claim to be trying to help.

      Five hundred years from now it’s likely that the Western empire will be gone and an Eastern empire from the pacific rim will replace it. If that happens everything will be about Asian privilege because that’s how empires work.

      Hopefully the Western empire will be the last and a true anarchist society will emerge but I suspect it could be more probable that we will usher in our own extinction instead.

      “Without the employment of violence or threat of it, there is no such thing as hierarchies in society that are “oppressive”. If no force is threatened, then you are only “oppressed” if you choose to be.”

      Corporate hierarchies are oppressive as well as banks. That’s why abolishing IP and patent law as well as cyber currencies attack the very foundation of the Corpratacracy that runs everything. Any institution that wields to much power creates coercion and scarcity.

      “That’s funny, because this whole discussion is about people who see reason to object to people’s peculiarities, and making judgment calls by calling them “brutists” or “privileged” or “racist”. And you yourself are claiming that they are doing this without interfering with anyone’s life, liberty or property.”

      I think it’s you who have misunderstood Mr.Tuckers point. I support your right to be a bigot and hold prejudice. That’s what that means.”If your neighbor isn’t interfering with your life, liberty or property then you have no reason to object to that persons peculiarities.”

      But I also have a right to voice my objections provided they don’t interfere with your life, liberty and property. The choice is what form of community you wish to live in.

      “Diversity is statist nonsense. There would be very little of it without a state to compel it.”

      That’s funny. I live in multicultural Los Angeles and it’s a great place to live. The people who live here do so because they choose too. The state doesn’t force people to stay here lmao Making money is a beautiful thing and the black markets are here BECAUSE of the diversity.

      “A community is the mental and spiritual condition of knowing that the place is shared, and that the people who share the place define and limit the possibilities of each other’s lives. It is the knowledge that people have of each other, their concern for each other, their trust in each other, the freedom with which they come and go among themselves.”
      ― Wendell Berry

      Reread it slowly and wrap your mind around it. It’s not collectivism for the whole of society but interdependence within each unique community. You could have a valley full of ancaps and another full of anarcho- communists. Their is no issue if those two diverse communities coexist. You could have one with Amish and another Muslim. The function is a stateless society and NAP and the form is how those peculiar communities are understood.

      “and that the people who share the place define and limit the possibilities of each other’s lives.”

      This is what mutually shared ethics means and is the primacy of a community.

  • TroubleBaby

    “It sounds collectivist but it’s called Liberty.”

    Nah, it’s collectivist. Briefly, here’s why:

    “A community is the mental and spiritual condition of knowing that the place is shared, and that the people who share the place define and limit the possibilities of each other’s lives.”

    That might be a commune as well as a community. There are variations on what it means to be a community.(look up the definition)

    The assumption that people have “the freedom with which they come” is a problem in and of itself if they are “coming” to a place of privately owned property. In other words, they can’t freely come to a community that values property rights and is composed of property rights without them first agreeing to said rights and then somehow purchasing access to said right or the property itself.

    So there’s a big hole in Berry’s statement, which is also your concluding statement.

    It’s a major hole because it undermines your whole point:

    “Hoppe’s view of immigration should make every libertarian cringe.”

    Why is that?

    Should we deny the Amish their freedom of association to please someone else? Isn’t that a violation of the NAP? If you want to be a part of the Amish community and they decide “no” are they violating the NAP? Are your hurt feelings a NAP violation?

    Really, what you’ve just said has no logical underpinnings what so ever. It’s almost pointless, except from the point of view as an excercise in logic for those that are “purists” to show what happens to people who are not logical.

  • Kennon Gilson

    Meanwhile, the 8 million fan around the world Libertarian International Organization never changes and always moves on: http://www.libertarianinternational.org

  • Leah_From_NH

    Amazingly, I find myself agreeing with Chris Cantwell here.

    When is someone going to write an intelligent piece on the problem within libertarian ranks of atheist assholes being so nasty as to absolutely close the mind of anyone we could have hoped to introduce to the message?

  • nickw

    Can we not try to pick fights with the nicest and most decent humans on the planet? Let’s first take down the NSA, the Fed, MIC, national healthcare, facism, etc, THEN worry about the distinction between your-definition-libertarian and same-same-but-different-libertarian

    • jtkennedy

      Screw that.

  • Tony

    Haters gonna hate

  • Pingback: Thick and Thin: The Libertarian Split | Reformed Libertarian()

  • Pingback: Libertarian Brutalists Must Recruit | Christopher Cantwell()

  • Pingback: The Slow, Painful Death of Reason Magazine | Christopher Cantwell()

  • Andrew Criscione

    Do you really have 8 million fans? I want to believe you, but I’m skeptical. Proof?

  • mtnrunner2

    Anyone who holds liberty hostage to a certain narrow and personally-and pre-defined result, does not understand liberty at all (Tucker). We have a right to liberty regardless of outcome, because it is *our life*.

    That is why I always try to make the point that liberty is not about particular values, it is about what *means* are morally permissible in pursuing them.

  • Pingback: Andrew's Awesome Advice | Defending the Brutalist of Brutalists()

  • http://www.socionomics.net/press/book_reviews/Calderwood_TomorrowsHeadlines.html David C.

    And libertarianism predictably splinters as do all philosophical movements.

    If Tucker’s essay reads as posted here, he exhibits a profound pessimism about individual liberty and a free society. In essence he (and all other “humanists”) states that left to the guidance of their own consciences (in the absence of coercion, mind you) people will wallow in Thoughtcrime (racism, homophobia, etc.) and evil will wax, not wane.

    I thought libertarian philosophy posited that a free society provides incentives toward social harmony that are absent in political society (where inter group conflict is axiomatic).

    Tucker is simply expressing a belief in minarchism, where Thoughtcrime is decided upon and initiated force is necessary to prevent an otherwise metastatic cancer from spreading and poisoning all society.

    The subjectivity and slippery-slope problems of this view large well-criticized elsewhere. Adherents of such views simply express a profound blindness to the path on which they espouse we all tread.